It is simply unfathomable that so many prominent people knew about Epstein’s activities and simply turned a blind eye to him. Similarly to the sexual assault scandals at USC, Penn State and US Gymnastics, the Catholic Church, etc.
People know but action is only taken after years or decades of awareness.
I think it's a good barometer for the relationship between money and ethics/law: if you have enough of the former, many people will ignore the latter when dealing with you.
In my opinion, this is one reason why massive wealth inequality is bad. It creates a caste of people who are often are immune to the legal system unless they do something sufficiently horrific.
OK, but this isn't an example of it. It has never been against the law to know about a crime and not report it. You only get in trouble for that in totalitarian countries.
Reminds me of Oswald Teichmuller, complex analyst and dedicated Nazi. The ability in mathematics to absolutely prove results correct makes using the research of evil people trivial. I doubt Shinichi Mochizuki gave Teichmuller's membership in the Nazi party a single thought when he published Inter-universal Teichmuller theory, and certainly no one has called for Mochizuki's cancellation or the dismantlement of his research group.
Epstein didn’t do any research to cite, he just had a close relationship with the administration he used to get an office and try to rehabilitate his image.
Yes, it was after Epstein was originally arrested for having sex with a minor. Epstein's actions were no secret. Those that worked and associated with him knew what he was up to. This is a good article that lays out how this was common knoweledge:
> This is a good article that lays out how this was common knoweledge:
The article names three different people who claim to have had no idea. Maybe they're lying, but I hadn't heard about Epstein before either, so I'm inclined to believe them. I don't think you can claim that it was "common knowledge". (Did you know?)
If you know someone personally, you generally know more about them than people who don't. The fact that you don't know my mother has a bankruptcy in her past doesn't speak at all to whether I'm likely or expected to know that my mother has had a bankruptcy in her past.
The fact that so many people knew about Epstein in 2008, it being a hugely reported on arrest and indictment, makes it even more damning. The idea that I knew and they didn't is absurd.
I'll throw out an idea I mentioned in another comment.
I feel like if you're a guy like Epstein and you do that stuff at scale. I suspect you actually are really good at judging people as far as "is this person going to be cool / interested in this" and identifying the folks whom it would be risky to let on about some of that dark stuff. In fact it seems like he would be likely REALLY good at all that and related such manipulation.
Other cases like at Michigan State you had a lot of people who knew about the guy there, but also near to him folks who it would seem really didn't know / didn't have anything to hide.
What makes you think the super powerful, rich and "smart" people associated with Epstein, weren't also a good judge of character or aware of who they were dealing with? As is documented throughout this thread, many of them met with Epstein after his high profile arrest for having sex with a minor.
I think there signifigant a difference as far as what you know goes from being a good judge of someone and deciding to share something with them VS. figuring out they have some massive abusive sex ring going on.
Not only did a lot of these people interact with Epstein after he was convicted of having sex with a child, they actively worked to get him off the hook:
I don't think that implies when he received it. I assumed that he could receive benefits at one point in time, and later use that "as a tool to rehabilitate his image".
One common similarity in these cases is that always relatively powerless people are exposed and "face consequences" (don't we all love that phrase by now).
Clinton and Gates also had "connections" to Epstein.
The really interesting part is a) who Epstein worked for and b) the powerful people he collected information about.
I find it hard to believe that visits to this island were just favors to his friends. More likely he took videos and collected compromising information, Hoover style.
>I find it hard to believe that visits to this island were just favors to his friends. More likely he took videos and collected compromising information, Hoover style.
Why would favors to friends be 'hard to believe'? Favors among friends seems like a pretty predictable human trait.
Epstein and his associates have all admitted that there were hidden cameras throughout all of his properties which he used to record the activities of his guests for later blackmail and leverage. Epstein, Maxwell, Guiffre, his staff and many associates have confirmed as much.
Epstein also had known ties to multiple intelligence agencies.
There's been several interviews with IT people who helped setup the surveillance and networking equipment. It's also documented that the cameras did exist as discovered when his NY home was raided. Maria Farmer talks about this too:
But you said Epstein, Maxwell, etc. have confirmed as much. I think you’re right, but I don’t think we have any clear evidence of it yet in public. All I’ve seen is evidence that there were cameras.
The Virgin Islands locals referred to it as "pedophile island." By all accounts Epstein was constantly in the company of girls of dubiously legal age. I could believe someone might go out to the island initially unaware of what was up. I don't believe they could maintain a long association with him (as Nowak did) without knowing or, more likely, participating in the abuse ring.
The timing seems like like he would likely have known about the accusations I agree.
Having said that, I gotta think Epstein (or really anyone up to this stuff) was pretty good about feeling out who he could victimize and who he could rope into his things ... and who he couldn't / it would be risky to do so. That probably means not revealing too much to folks he could use for his own purposes... but would want to avoid involving in the really dark stuff.
I gotta think folks who are up to this kind of thing at scale are reasonably good at sidestepping potential land mines / folks who might not be down with the darker things he was up to. Thus I get a little skeptical about the idea that anyone associated had to have known all the details.
Trump, Clinton, Gates, Reid Hoffman, Joi Ito, Naomi Campbell, Dershowitz, Nowak, David Copperfield, Minsky, Bill Richardson, Woody Allen, Prince Andrew, MBS...
Epstein had deep connections to all of these people (and plenty more). It's actually quite terrifying and depressing when you start to look at the big picture.
> One common similarity in these cases is that always relatively powerless people are exposed and "face consequences" (don't we all love that phrase by now).
Oh, god, the poor, powerless Harvard professors. My heart bleeds.
And yet Harvard still proudly associates with Alan Dershowitz who was deeply involved with Epstein, has been accused of raping minors with Epstein, and got Epstein off when he was caught the first time.
Connections to Epstein is not good enough reason. There has to shady connections. Epstein was hustler who lived from making connections. Short list of scientists who visited his Pedophile Island:
Epstein was up to young women, but few thought he was pimping underage girls as your source mentions.
There is nothing wrong with having two young girls with you all times.
Leonard Cohen did that to his 70s. Some may find it disgusting, but disgust is not good reason for judging others.
> There is nothing wrong with having two young girls with you all times.
In a professional context? You bet there is.
When Joi Ito brought Epstein to the MIT Media Lab, he had two young girls with him. When he left, lab members looked through the trash to look for SOS notes the girls may have dropped.
Bill Gates is quoted to have told employees that he stated up late at Epstein's house with a beautiful Swedish woman and her young daughter (the Dubins, the daughter was engaged to Epstein when she was underage).
At least one scientist on your list is a notorious harasser. As the kids say today, rather than letting his associates update your priors on Epstein, instead let the well-documented multi-decade abuses by Epstein inform your priors about everyone he worked with. Nearly everyone associated with him and his foundation should be non grata in all parts of the academic community.
Brockman literally invited people to Edge with promises of Epstein's entourage of girls! It's total bullshit to pretend there's some kind of uncertainty, none of those assholes can claim ignorance.
To lead with: No, the one I had in mind was Krauss. His name headed the list of sex pests as early as 2011 within the new atheist / skeptic / CFI / JREF community and the details only escalated since then.
But: A really common conversation derail when discussing this topic is to claim the fallout from the Epstein case is somehow discriminating against people with ASD or related conditions. I think it's similary offensive to claim someone with ALS could not have been a sexual abuser. Most humans are sexual animals, and Hawking somewhat notoriously so.
Is the problem the fact that he had an unofficial office or the fact that he may have raped people in this office? 60 visits that's a lot for a dude who forged his carrier.
If Epstein wasn't allowed to donate to Harvard, would that have somehow prevented him from sex trafficking? Would it have made the world a better place?
I don't understand this contemporary system of morality where if you something wrong without doing anything wrong yourself, you automatically get tainted with its sins. There's no consistency to this system either. People generally only care when someone they already hate is being "complicit."
Yes, he used his connections to Harvard explicitly to pressure women and law enforcement. Multiple Harvard faculty are also accused of raping girls Epstein provided.
Yes! He used these donations to network with elites and manipulated those connections to shield himself. That's how, after being convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008, he was given a brief sentence that included a 6-day-a-week 12-hour-a-day "work release" to his office, and a federal non-prosecution agreement. He obtained that with the help of people like Alan Dershowitz and Steven Pinker, both from Harvard.
If the rich and powerful can exploit the real justice system based on hard evidence, they can also exploit the mob justice system based on speculation to destroy their enemies. If this is normalized, then people like Epstein would have more ammunition that they can use for blackmail.
>He obtained that with the help of people like Alan Dershowitz and Steven Pinker, both from Harvard.
These two people offered Epstein specialized services that let him off easy. I don't see the same clear connection to wrongdoing in this case. All Epstein got from it was an office and a web page thanking him for the large donation. If that's wrong, then Mcdonald's is also wrong for providing him calories required to operate.
Do you honestly not see a material difference between McDonald's giving Epstein an office and putting up a webpage thanking him for his contributions to their business and McDonald's selling Epstein a hamburger? Do you honestly think that people would be angry at MIT for having allowed Epstein to eat in their food court without discovering his identity and forbidding him to eat there?
> Do you honestly think that people would be angry at MIT for having allowed Epstein to eat in their food court without discovering his identity and forbidding him to eat there?
That's my point. People shouldn't be angry at that, so they shouldn't be angry at this.
Even if McDonalds can identify Epstein at all their locations, there is still no reason to deny him service. It's not their duty to make up for the broken justice system nor should it be. Same goes for program director. Unless if there is evidence of a connection between the evolution center and his sex trafficking, then it's pointless to shut it down.
“Harvard closes evolution center after finding connections to Adolf Hitler”
And then let’s evaluate your comment in that context:
> If Hitler wasn't allowed to donate to Harvard, would that have somehow prevented World War 2? Would it have made the world a better place?
In our hypothetical situation, no, it wouldn’t have done either of those things. But first, Harvard could reasonably say “you know, that money just isn’t worth it.” They could also reasonably say “we don’t want the taint of that name on our institution, or to have to explain why we were OK keeping it.”
I don’t think anyone’s likely to honestly argue against the hypothetical school’s actions. In other words, we can agree that there are people so awful that you just don’t want anything to do with them.
Real world Harvard ran the moral calculus on Epstein and came to the same conclusion as the hypothetical one. The only discussion is whether Epstein should be elevated to the level of awfulness that the school should take these actions. Apparently Harvard felt so, and I think that was a fair and sensible decision.
The act of donating is not just something that happens in a vacuum, and having ties to Epstein just ends up leading to tons of questions. "Did someone exchange favors for sex? What caused Epstein to donate? Who was engaging in what sort of relationships with him and his associates?"
This is why you don't just accept any and all donations from anyone. And here the best option seems obviously to close the center and open something new that does not have the ties to Epstein hanging over it.
The whole thing reminds me more and more of subculture of Russian jails. By touching or interacting with something disgraceful, even in-directly, you'll acquire "зашквар" and will be put out-of-the-law (criminal law that is) and will be forced to do disgraceful things, provide sexual services, etc.
Example of an act. If someone uses a toilet and then doesn't wash their hands and someone shakes their hand, the person who shook the had go "зашквар" now and that's it, they are done. They'll get a whole in their metal plate they use for food, may be some special tatoos, etc, etc...
Regardless of what they do to its current director and regardless of where some of the center's donated money came from... why did they close the center? Couldn't they find a new director? Or was the whole center somehow involved?
Part of the challenge is that a large part of the center’s initial funding was from this one source. Furthermore, Professor Nowak is such a key figure as director of this center that it could be hard to find a replacement while he is on probation. Another challenge is that, after Jeffrey Epstein’s character and connection came to light, the name for the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics took on repulsive connotations that the university is right to discard altogether.
This is actually an apt comparison because the vast majority of people who associated with, enabled, and co-conspired with Epstein haven't suffered any consequences either.
What's with all these half-measures? Let's close America, since Epstein was born here, lived here, payed taxes and what not. We can at least close New York, since it's definitely eternally tainted by him.
This is simply Harvard protecting it's own revenue stream.
Universities, especially Harvard, routinely trade respectability for cash. Harvard is unusually reliant on private endowments. Taking rich people's money and making them look respectable in return is a core part of their operations.
So why was taking Epstein's money unusual or wrong?
At the time, it wasn't. He was known in certain circles, but not famous, and certainly not infamous. He had money to spend and universities tend not to look too closely at where money comes from if there's enough of it. Quantity has a quality all it's own.
Then Epstein became infamous. Even Harvard's ability to confer respectability is finite. Harvard likely started this investigation shortly after the Epstein story trended, not because they didn't know what had been done, but because they needed to be able to say they had handled the situation once people noticed. If they had simply swept it under the rug and then been found out it would have harmed the Univeristy's reputation and ability to confer respectability. Who would buy respectability from a university that thinks nothing of selling it to people like Jeffrey Epstein?
Nobody noticed, so Harvard was able to let the "investigation" drag on for a couple years to the point where Epstein should have been mostly forgotten, were he not living on as a meme. The longevity of the Epstein meme and his continuing infamy is likely why Nowak is getting more than a slap on the wrist. Justice must be seen to be done, even if Nowak did nothing that isn't still going on every day at Harvard.
71 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 99.8 ms ] threadPeople know but action is only taken after years or decades of awareness.
In my opinion, this is one reason why massive wealth inequality is bad. It creates a caste of people who are often are immune to the legal system unless they do something sufficiently horrific.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-universal_Teichm%C3%BC...
So Epstein was a horrible dude. Did this professor know about that stuff when he gave him these privileges?
> he had extensive, previously unreported contact with Epstein.
>giving the disgraced wealthy financier an office on campus which he visited more than 40 times between 2010 and 2018.
>Epstein’s efforts to use ties to the prestigious university Harvard as a tool to rehabilitate his image
None of that sounds particularly strange. Was this all after the Epstein stuff came out?
Did professor guy know what Epstein was up to?
It doesn't strike me as that odd that a big donor gets recognition / some privileges.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-ep...
The article names three different people who claim to have had no idea. Maybe they're lying, but I hadn't heard about Epstein before either, so I'm inclined to believe them. I don't think you can claim that it was "common knowledge". (Did you know?)
* https://slate.com/technology/2019/08/jeffrey-epstein-science...
* https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2019/08/jeffrey-ep...
* https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-inte...
He always had girls around him. I don't believe that one could associate with Epstein and be ignorant of who he was.
The fact that so many people knew about Epstein in 2008, it being a hugely reported on arrest and indictment, makes it even more damning. The idea that I knew and they didn't is absurd.
I feel like if you're a guy like Epstein and you do that stuff at scale. I suspect you actually are really good at judging people as far as "is this person going to be cool / interested in this" and identifying the folks whom it would be risky to let on about some of that dark stuff. In fact it seems like he would be likely REALLY good at all that and related such manipulation.
Other cases like at Michigan State you had a lot of people who knew about the guy there, but also near to him folks who it would seem really didn't know / didn't have anything to hide.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/07/17/steven-pinker...
What do you think "as a tool to rehabilitate his image" suggests?
Clinton and Gates also had "connections" to Epstein.
The really interesting part is a) who Epstein worked for and b) the powerful people he collected information about.
I find it hard to believe that visits to this island were just favors to his friends. More likely he took videos and collected compromising information, Hoover style.
Why would favors to friends be 'hard to believe'? Favors among friends seems like a pretty predictable human trait.
You're headed down the tinfoil road here I think.
Epstein also had known ties to multiple intelligence agencies.
> he was told that Epstein "belonged to intelligence", was "above his pay grade," and to "leave it alone".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Acosta#Non-prosecuti...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-accuser-maria-f...
Having said that, I gotta think Epstein (or really anyone up to this stuff) was pretty good about feeling out who he could victimize and who he could rope into his things ... and who he couldn't / it would be risky to do so. That probably means not revealing too much to folks he could use for his own purposes... but would want to avoid involving in the really dark stuff.
I gotta think folks who are up to this kind of thing at scale are reasonably good at sidestepping potential land mines / folks who might not be down with the darker things he was up to. Thus I get a little skeptical about the idea that anyone associated had to have known all the details.
My guess: he blackmailed rich people and then funneled money to intelligence services under the guise of “giving tax advice”.
You forgot Trump.
Epstein had deep connections to all of these people (and plenty more). It's actually quite terrifying and depressing when you start to look at the big picture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen_sexual_abuse_alleg...
I don't read into the connections as a whole too much, though. The rich and famous hang out with the rich and famous.
The tech people I listed also worked hard to conceal their relationship with Epstein, including lying about it multiple times.
Oh, god, the poor, powerless Harvard professors. My heart bleeds.
https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10210/Dershowitz/
Harvard's connection to Epstein go a lot deeper than just Nowak.
Stephen Hawkins,
David Gross,
Gerard ‘t Hooft,
Lawrence Krauss,
Lisa Randall,
Martin Nowak,
Frank Wilczek.
https://slate.com/technology/2019/08/jeffrey-epstein-science...
There is nothing wrong with having two young girls with you all times. Leonard Cohen did that to his 70s. Some may find it disgusting, but disgust is not good reason for judging others.
In a professional context? You bet there is.
When Joi Ito brought Epstein to the MIT Media Lab, he had two young girls with him. When he left, lab members looked through the trash to look for SOS notes the girls may have dropped.
Bill Gates is quoted to have told employees that he stated up late at Epstein's house with a beautiful Swedish woman and her young daughter (the Dubins, the daughter was engaged to Epstein when she was underage).
This is horrible and completely inappropriate statement.
But: A really common conversation derail when discussing this topic is to claim the fallout from the Epstein case is somehow discriminating against people with ASD or related conditions. I think it's similary offensive to claim someone with ALS could not have been a sexual abuser. Most humans are sexual animals, and Hawking somewhat notoriously so.
I don't understand this contemporary system of morality where if you something wrong without doing anything wrong yourself, you automatically get tainted with its sins. There's no consistency to this system either. People generally only care when someone they already hate is being "complicit."
>He obtained that with the help of people like Alan Dershowitz and Steven Pinker, both from Harvard.
These two people offered Epstein specialized services that let him off easy. I don't see the same clear connection to wrongdoing in this case. All Epstein got from it was an office and a web page thanking him for the large donation. If that's wrong, then Mcdonald's is also wrong for providing him calories required to operate.
If not, this is a dishonest argument.
That's my point. People shouldn't be angry at that, so they shouldn't be angry at this.
Even if McDonalds can identify Epstein at all their locations, there is still no reason to deny him service. It's not their duty to make up for the broken justice system nor should it be. Same goes for program director. Unless if there is evidence of a connection between the evolution center and his sex trafficking, then it's pointless to shut it down.
“Harvard closes evolution center after finding connections to Adolf Hitler”
And then let’s evaluate your comment in that context:
> If Hitler wasn't allowed to donate to Harvard, would that have somehow prevented World War 2? Would it have made the world a better place?
In our hypothetical situation, no, it wouldn’t have done either of those things. But first, Harvard could reasonably say “you know, that money just isn’t worth it.” They could also reasonably say “we don’t want the taint of that name on our institution, or to have to explain why we were OK keeping it.”
I don’t think anyone’s likely to honestly argue against the hypothetical school’s actions. In other words, we can agree that there are people so awful that you just don’t want anything to do with them.
Real world Harvard ran the moral calculus on Epstein and came to the same conclusion as the hypothetical one. The only discussion is whether Epstein should be elevated to the level of awfulness that the school should take these actions. Apparently Harvard felt so, and I think that was a fair and sensible decision.
This is why you don't just accept any and all donations from anyone. And here the best option seems obviously to close the center and open something new that does not have the ties to Epstein hanging over it.
Example of an act. If someone uses a toilet and then doesn't wash their hands and someone shakes their hand, the person who shook the had go "зашквар" now and that's it, they are done. They'll get a whole in their metal plate they use for food, may be some special tatoos, etc, etc...
Universities, especially Harvard, routinely trade respectability for cash. Harvard is unusually reliant on private endowments. Taking rich people's money and making them look respectable in return is a core part of their operations.
So why was taking Epstein's money unusual or wrong?
At the time, it wasn't. He was known in certain circles, but not famous, and certainly not infamous. He had money to spend and universities tend not to look too closely at where money comes from if there's enough of it. Quantity has a quality all it's own.
Then Epstein became infamous. Even Harvard's ability to confer respectability is finite. Harvard likely started this investigation shortly after the Epstein story trended, not because they didn't know what had been done, but because they needed to be able to say they had handled the situation once people noticed. If they had simply swept it under the rug and then been found out it would have harmed the Univeristy's reputation and ability to confer respectability. Who would buy respectability from a university that thinks nothing of selling it to people like Jeffrey Epstein?
Nobody noticed, so Harvard was able to let the "investigation" drag on for a couple years to the point where Epstein should have been mostly forgotten, were he not living on as a meme. The longevity of the Epstein meme and his continuing infamy is likely why Nowak is getting more than a slap on the wrist. Justice must be seen to be done, even if Nowak did nothing that isn't still going on every day at Harvard.